That "Nikon look"

gonzogolf wrote in post #18276845
The skill to know you can use flash duration to freeze motion. The skill to shoot from nn angle that isolates the subject from the background.

Uh, yeah, flash can do that. A large percentage of those shots have trees and bright floodlights in the "isolated background".

What browser do you use? I would strongly suggest going to that browser's add-ons or plug-ins configuration page, and search EXIF. I personally use this person's plug in.

Having this would have eliminated alot of the questions and ensuing arguments.

https://addons.mozilla​.org …user/alan-raskin/?src=api

There is nothing I see in those pictures that cannot be obtained with Canon gear. With a more blurred or flat dark background, appropriate exposure, strobing, and post processing, I would even say somebody that does this alot and was good at it, and was armed with Canon gear, knowing how to post process could probably get better images.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18276932
What browser do you use? I would strongly suggest going to that browser's add-ons or plug-ins configuration page, and search EXIF. I personally use this person's plug in.

Having this would have eliminated alot of the questions and ensuing arguments.

https://addons.mozilla​.org …user/alan-raskin/?src=api

There is nothing I see in those pictures that cannot be obtained with Canon gear. With a more blurred or flat dark background, appropriate exposure, strobing, and post processing, I would even say somebody that does this alot and was good at it, and was armed with Canon gear, knowing how to post process could probably get better images.

Thanks for the link! I will get that right away. Been too busy to do it so far today. I used to have a browser add-on for EXIF, but lost it during a computer upgrade.

And yes, I would like to think to think someone with Canon gear could get as good or better images. With the possible exception of the ski lodge shot, in a single non-HDR exposure at low ISO, with better DR than what is available from Canon.

The DR differences only really come into play when you start to pull up shadows for whatever the desired effect you are going for. The 80D, 5D4 and 1DX2 now sport the new sensor, and Canon is now not that far from Sony at all. In any case, DR matters little in those shots if there is no post processing later where the shooter is trying to bring up shadows, or if the overall image was underexposed, and they had to pull it up 2+ stops.

I really don't get the term HDR though. HDR is nothing more than shrinking the final DR of the image down to just handful of stops so that you can make out everything in the scene. I would think some of the HDR shots I have seen should really be called LDR.

Unless you specifically NEEEEEEED that extra 1-1.5 stops of dynamic range, there's nothing you can't do with a Canon sensor in these images. I'd go so far as to say that what you're seeing isn't really a benefit of increased DR, and more just decent lighting and Lightroom.

It is getting expensive paying my shop to change the shutter oil every 3K clicks. I might have to start doing it myself.

.

KatManDEW wrote in post #18276949
And yes, I would like to think to think someone with Canon gear could get as good or better images.

.
Well, of course they can! It doesn't look like there is anything particularly special in the images you linked to, from a technical standpoint. What is special about them is the result of the point of view from which they were taken, the distance-to-subject from which they were taken, the backgrounds themselves (in most of the images), and the subject-to-background distance (again, in most, but not all, of the images), and the skillful use of artificial lighting.

The "look" that you seem to refer to is just a function of having an illuminated subject with enough background separation that the background was not illuminated along with the subject. There is nothing about the "look" that would necessitate a sensor other than what Canon DSLRs come with.

What is really responsible for that look was the artist's vision, and his knowledge of lighting and compositional geometry, and how the one affects the other - which allowed him to capture his vision.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18277016
The DR differences only really come into play when you start to pull up shadows for whatever the desired effect you are going for. The 80D, 5D4 and 1DX2 now sport the new sensor, and Canon is now not that far from Sony at all. In any case, DR matters little in those shots if there is no post processing later where the shooter is trying to bring up shadows, or if the overall image was underexposed, and they had to pull it up 2+ stops.

I really don't get the term HDR though. HDR is nothing more than shrinking the final DR of the image down to just handful of stops so that you can make out everything in the scene. I would think some of the HDR shots I have seen should really be called LDR.

I got that EXIF viewer. Thanks again for the recommendation and link. I didn't check all of those photos, but it looks like all the ones on the slope are at ISO 800-1250, where Nikon/Sony have no dynamic range advantage over Canon. The photos of the musicians on stage were ISO 6400, f/2.8, with no flash.

That photographer apparently got pretty close to the action on the slopes, since he was shooting a 24-70 lens on a full frame body. That's probably a little more daredevil and obtrusive than I will be. I'll have my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 with me, but I'll more than likely be standing back a little with my Canon 70-200 f/2.8. My bones don't heal as well as they did when I was younger, and I don't like to be obnoxiously obtrusive while photographing.

What camera are you using? Does it have WiFi? If so, you could set up the equipment and remote fire.

.

KatManDEW wrote in post #18277337
That photographer apparently got pretty close to the action............that​'s probably a little more daredevil and obtrusive than I will be...............I don't like to be obnoxiously obtrusive while photographing.

.
It's not 'obnoxiously obtrusive' if the skiers and snowboarders are hiring him to photograph them, and pleading with him to "do whatever it takes to get awesome shots, pleeeaase!"

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18277404
.

.
It's not 'obnoxiously obtrusive' if the skiers and snowboarders are hiring him to photograph them, and pleading with him to "do whatever it takes to get awesome shots, pleeeaase!"

.

IF

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18277343
What camera are you using? Does it have WiFi? If so, you could set up the equipment and remote fire.

My 5D4 has WiFi and I've triggered it remotely with my phone. Thanks for the idea.

I think they had a special jump setup at the bottom of the hill for the photos in that link that I posted, because of all the people standing around in the photos. I had to walk halfway up the hill to get to any of the jumps. I was only able to stay for a very short time after it got completely dark.

For what it's worth here are a couple shots I got. C&C welcome. And if anyone wants to take a crack at one of the raw files I can make them available somewhere.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread.

Image hosted by forum (841578) © KatManDEW THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

I mean all of those clearly had flash used on them. Maybe not the ones that were wide angle with a lot of people in them but even then maybe. There's literally nothing special about those shots so I don't think that has to do with the type of camera they use as opposed to the skills and knowing the settings to use

Cool shots and all but nothing that stands out that makes me think "wow I wish I had a Nikon"

Nikon colors and Canon colors.
After growing out from advanced P&S we went to the all gone now Canadian Store. It was at the end of 2008. I wanted Nikon D90. It was with more advanced zoom. It was 1200 CAD before taxes. But my wife spotted open box Canon 500D. We paid for it, memory card, tripod and extended warranty slightly above 1K CAD with taxes included.
My wife still don't want to use it because non of the Canon DSLR have central point selection in full Auto mode. But D90 has it.
Later on I went to customer site in Montreal. One of the technicians has very good images of same kind I was taken as screen saver on his computer screen. I asked. He was using D90. And it was first time for me to realize what Nikon renders it differently for colors.